Sometimes I almost feel sorry for Bob Beckel … almost. I do admire his courage for being the lone liberal on Hannity’s “Great American Panel” on Fox News.

Tonight, he’s in the position of defending Obama’s silence regarding the popular uprising in Iran related to that country’s recent election. Beckel stated that he felt Obama was advised to remain quiet to prevent the current regime from having an excuse to crack down harder on the protesters. He stated that he felt Obama making a statement in favor of the protesters would give the regime an excuse to blame the current uprisings on the United States and it would, as a consequence, deal more harshly with the protesters.

Who else thinks that the current paranoid government of Iran actually needs an excuse to blame the current uprising on the United States or any other western power? It has never appeared to me that the current despotic government of Iran has needed any excuse to blame the United States for any and everything that they couldn’t deal with intelligently.

According to a recent report, as many as 28 million people in Iran may have voted against Ahmadenejad as opposed to the less than 7 million who were reported to have voted for him. Those are fairly impressive numbers … more than 4 to 1 against the current Iranian leader. It’s highly unlikely that 28 million Iranians have all of a sudden become pro American. After more than 30 years of oppression by their despotic government, it’s much more likely that the 28 million are simply voting against their current rulers and simply prefer anything or anyone rather than who’s in power now.

So, the question really is, “Is President Obama protecting the protesters from greater oppression and harm; or, is he simply dropping the ball by not providing them with moral support and encouragement that they may desperately need?” What’s wrong with the leader of America simply stating that America favors free and open elections where evey qualified person’s vote counts … in any country? Has he forgotten that this very premise is the reason the United States of America was founded, the reason for the American Revolution, the desire for the American colonists to have representation and not feel disenfranchised by their government? Apparently, voicing the founding principle of this country sticks in President Obama’s craw. Fear of the reaction of a two bit dictator in Iran quells him into silence.

Apparently, hundreds of Iranians may have already lost their lives in the ongoing protests with thousands more injured and jailed. Does the Iranian government really need an excuse to crack down further on the protesters? Those Iranian protesters have infinitely more courage than our president.

The deafening silence of the current administration does send a message … both to Americans and Iranians. If the election in Iran was so corrupt that millions of Iranians feel the election was stolen from them, the United States government led by the Obama administration will do nothing, not even by simply providing a verbal message of support for free and honest elections in that country.

So, Bob Beckel finds himself in the position of somehow having to defend the Obama administration for remaining silent to “protect” the protesters.

Where would we be today if Ronald Reagan had not said, “Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall.”? Would the Berliners have had the courage to eventually confront their communist oppressors and bring the end to the division of Germany and the eventual destruction of the “Iron Curtain” that imprisoned Eastern Europe for most of my lifetime? It’s entirely possible that they and other eastern Europeans might have reached the same point today without the encouragement of President Reagan. But, it’s also a definite fact that every action that President Reagan took was aimed at that goal … to assist the Eastern Europeans in obtaining their freedom … and his speeches and actions didn’t hinder the process.

Well, as far as foreign policy and diplomacy are concerned, Barack Obama isn’t even in the same ballpark with Ronald Reagan. He doesn’t even hold a candle to the bungling JFK. At least Kennedy had the courage of his convictions even if he bungled repeatedly due to his naivety.

The current situation in Iran and the lack of response from Obama brings into question exactly what Barack Obama’s convictions are; or, if he, in fact, has any.This man makes the timid Jimmy Carter look like Atilla the Hun … and that’s pretty amazing.

Well, someone correct me if I’m wrong; but, unless your talking about coal gasefication or in some way extracting natural gas from shale oil deposits, I think you have to “drill, drill , drill” to get natural gas. In other words, it doesn’t grow on trees.

Now, I know that Mr. Pickens has the reputation of being sort of one of these western cowboy types … being from Texas, but I don’t think he was referring to placing rectal tubes in those cowboys from “Blazing Saddles” as his main source of “natural” gas, compressed or otherwise.

Natural gas is, in fact, a “renewable” source of energy. It can be produced from the fermentation of waste products as those cowboys around the camp fire amply exhibited. I seriously doubt that Mr. Pickens was referring to the “renewable” aspect of natural gas, though.

Currently, commercially significant natural gas comes from wells … which have to be drilled. So, unless gasefication of fossil fuel liquids and solids becomes a more prominent source of natural gas, drilling new wells and exploration for new deposits of natural gas which frequently occurs in the same wells as crude oil will be the main technique for expanding our natural gas supply.

As a side note, Mr. Pickens has referred to Iran converting to natural gas instead of gasoline for its transportation needs. I doubt that this is based on any environmental concerns. Iran lacks refining capacity and has to import refined gasoline just as we do because of our lack of sufficient refining capacity. Since natural gas doesn’t have to be refined, it is a natural solution to their critical shortage of refining capacity and could, in the short term, relieve our shortage in refining capacity.

Susan Rice in her typical political posturing, acting more like the proverbial attack dog rather than a foreign policy advisor, again attacked the Bush administration for not negotiating with Iran and not applying tougher sanctions during an interview with Sheppard Smith on Fox News.

Ms. Rice stated that the United States should use more diplomatic means to encourage our European allies to assist with tougher sanctions. She also stated the President Bush finally followed Barack Obama’s recommendations to begin diplomacy with Iran by sending a diplomat to sit in on European talks with Iran in Switzerland a short time ago.

What Ms. Rice failed to explain was how the United States was going to influence Russia and China not to provide support to Iran. She also failed to mention how we were going to influence North Korea in the same way. She also failed to mention the recent increase in sanctions on Iran which had already been planned. I suppose that was also at Senator Obama’s suggestion.

While pointing out that the Iranians have been advancing their nuclear program for the past eight years during the Bush administration, she failed to point out that North Korea did the same thing to the Clinton administration under which she also served as a foreign policy advisor.

While criticizing the McCain campaign for attacking Obama in reference to Obama referring to Iran as a small and insignificant nation stating that Obama has always considered Iran a serious threat, she failed to mention that Obama only “clarified” his position on Iran after his statements about Iran were criticized.

She further made the often repeated complaint that the Democratic candidate’s remarks were “taken out of context” which seems to be the standard response to each of his frequent faux pas which repeatedly point to his lack of experience or inability to completely grasp the significance of world conditions until someone with more experience points out his deficiencies.

Apparently, Susan Rice hasn’t learned from her previous experience while serving the Clinton administration since her approach to rogue nations has been unchanged in more than 15 years.

It makes me wonder how much Senator Obama, if he becomes President Obama, will rely on advice from people like Susan Rice who can’t even learn from their previous mistakes.

Has anyone else noticed how Senator Obama’s “clarifications” of his positions or statements actually sound more like changes in policies and positions?

And, is anyone besides me getting tired of the Democrats using the nearly worn out phrase, “out of context” as a lame excuse for ignorance and inexperience?

Also, has anyone else noticed how Barack Obama or one of his cronies claim credit for his influencing any positive or potentially positive event that occurs?

I suppose if “Gustav” misses New Orleans or any other major Gulf coast city, we will have to give Barack Obama credit for providing divine intervention … and Susan Rice for recommending the action.